Since Bob O'H named the previous thread after his house pet feline overlord, I figure I can get away with naming the next after Foster, a dearly loved and missed dog. He was a better person than most people who legitimately are classified as homo sapien, especially a fair number of those retrograde knotheads over at UD.

Too maudlin?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,11:01)If KF is engaged in politicking and appears in public places, his image is fair game.

Besides, doesn't he approve of outing when it's someone else?

Why yes, he does!

It's the asymmetry that justifies his hypocrisy, you see.

That being said, I do agree with Louis* that compiling dossiers on the UD denizens borders on creepy stalker behavior. Gentlemen don't read each other's mail, and all that.

* Is that a bannable offense here?

After having been banned at UD upon Kairosfocus request for linking to one of his own web pages that displayed his real name I think is fair to use the later. Especially, since he used at least one other name (dictionary). In addition, he still signs his comments as GEM.

Although I think KF is either hysterical or just playing the upset I think his relatives should not get involved in these issues. OTH, if he mentions his wife in his posts it is fair to cite this fact in comments.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Since Bob O'H named the previous thread after his house pet feline overlord, I figure I can get away with naming the next after Foster, a dearly loved and missed dog. He was a better person than most people who legitimately are classified as homo sapien, especially a fair number of those retrograde knotheads over at UD.

Too maudlin?

Not in the slightest. Foster looks to be a fine fellow, a canine superior in every way to the asinine at UD.

This is another thing I hold against the UD version of Christianity: a heaven which does not admit loyal companions like your Foster or my Sam can do without me as well. Not that there is much chance of me getting there even if it does exist.

Thank you. I shall now make a joke about what you do to horses, as is customary.

Won't anybody think of the gerbils?

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

The top intelligent design book honors for 2007 goes to Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution [bla bla bla]

The “edge” of evolution, a line that defines the border between random and non-random mutation, lies very far from where Darwin pointed. Behe argues convincingly that most of the mutations that have defined the history of life on earth have been non-random.

Most Darwinist response is ill-informed attacks and cries of “Darwindunit!” when it was plentifully obvious that Darwin didn’t do it.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

I remember that some bigtime ID evolution critic displayed two pictures of a thylacine, one reversed and desaturated, to illustrate some creationist falsehood a few years ago. Anybody remember who that was? Was that Cornelius Hunter?

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

I remember that some bigtime ID evolution critic displayed two pictures of a thylacine, one reversed and desaturated, to illustrate some creationist falsehood a few years ago. Anybody remember who that was? Was that Cornelius Hunter?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Now, since I have you on the line, let me ask you to consider a wild scenario regarding all those babies Yahweh had the Israelites kill: what if you came to know with metaphysical certainty that the consciousness inhabited by each one of those poor little babies was actually something akin to a Hitler or Stalin in a former incarnation on a different planet? How would that color your view about their being killed in such a manner by the Israelites during their incarnation on this planet?

Edit to add:

I'm somewhat interested in how one can be guilty simple by thinking bad thoughts in utero. Not to mention the inheritance of guilt from past lives.

Freaking amazing what that site tolerates and doesn't tolerate.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Now, since I have you on the line, let me ask you to consider a wild scenario regarding all those babies Yahweh had the Israelites kill: what if you came to know with metaphysical certainty that the consciousness inhabited by each one of those poor little babies was actually something akin to a Hitler or Stalin in a former incarnation on a different planet? How would that color your view about their being killed in such a manner by the Israelites during their incarnation on this planet?

Edit to add:

I'm somewhat interested in how one can be guilty simple by thinking bad thoughts in utero. Not to mention the inheritance of guilt from past lives.

Freaking amazing what that site tolerates and doesn't tolerate.

Yeah but we tolerate Teh Gayz which makes us atheistsas bad as paedophilessooper secret agenda paedophile apologists paedophiles on a daily basis.

I'm somewhat interested in how one can be guilty simple by thinking bad thoughts in utero. Not to mention the inheritance of guilt from past lives.

Isn't the inheritance of guilt a central belief of Christianity? We are all fallen sinners and such? And punishment of the children for the sins of their fathers.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Now, kindly explain where morality fits into that unavoidable component of the atheistic worldview.

I don't get it. The universe might show nothing but blind, pitiless indifference, but humans are clearly not indifferent. Humans have empathy, they care for their children, they're able to reflect about their actions and how these might affect others. That's a pretty good basis for developing morality, IMO.

I also observe that the universe is pretty dark, cold, and mostly empty, and I still have lights, a heating system, and furniture.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

I also observe that the universe is pretty dark, cold, and mostly empty, and I still have lights, a heating system, and furniture.

At least for now you do. But just wait for the new austerity measures that are just around the corner.

I'll fight for my couch to the death!OTOH, I'm using energy saving bulbs* since approximately 1995, so they don't get me there ;)

* Since yesterday, 60-watt bulbs are banned in all countries of the European union (100-watt and 75-watt bulbs were already banned).

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

* Since yesterday, 60-watt bulbs are banned in all countries of the European union (100-watt and 75-watt bulbs were already banned).

ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

Energy saving bulbs are wicked and evil and do not represent proper/Jesus'/American/British/Whatever bulbs that have been around forever since Adam made them in the Garden of Eden and these new bulbs give you cancer and are due to that fake global warming stuff which is a communist, atheist, gay, leftie, black, tree hugger plot made to take money from rich, white people (who are the best at everything ever and deserve to be by divine/biological/both right) and you can't tell me that's not true because old bulbs give better light and it's not entirely subjective at all oh no it's not.

And they lower house prices and encourage dirty dirty immigrants who are now white, but speak funny, which makes us confused because we can't call them pakis.

* Since yesterday, 60-watt bulbs are banned in all countries of the European union (100-watt and 75-watt bulbs were already banned).

ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

Energy saving bulbs are wicked and evil and do not represent proper/Jesus'/American/British/Whatever bulbs that have been around forever since Adam made them in the Garden of Eden and these new bulbs give you cancer and are due to that fake global warming stuff which is a communist, atheist, gay, leftie, black, tree hugger plot made to take money from rich, white people (who are the best at everything ever and deserve to be by divine/biological/both right) and you can't tell me that's not true because old bulbs give better light and it's not entirely subjective at all oh no it's not.

And they lower house prices and encourage dirty dirty immigrants who are now white, but speak funny, which makes us confused because we can't call them pakis.

[/Daily Mail and/or my mother]

Louis

ETA: How did I do?

Pretty good, but you forgot that it's a conspiracy by Osram and Philipps to monopolise the market*, that energy saving bulbs are actually WORSE for the environment, and that they lead to depression.

ETA: * which nicely fits in with the communist etc. plot to take money from the rich.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

* Since yesterday, 60-watt bulbs are banned in all countries of the European union (100-watt and 75-watt bulbs were already banned).

ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

Energy saving bulbs are wicked and evil and do not represent proper/Jesus'/American/British/Whatever bulbs that have been around forever since Adam made them in the Garden of Eden and these new bulbs give you cancer and are due to that fake global warming stuff which is a communist, atheist, gay, leftie, black, tree hugger plot made to take money from rich, white people (who are the best at everything ever and deserve to be by divine/biological/both right) and you can't tell me that's not true because old bulbs give better light and it's not entirely subjective at all oh no it's not.

And they lower house prices and encourage dirty dirty immigrants who are now white, but speak funny, which makes us confused because we can't call them pakis.

[/Daily Mail and/or my mother]

Louis

ETA: How did I do?

Pretty good, but you forgot that it's a conspiracy by Osram and Philipps to monopolise the market, that energy saving bulbs are actually WORSE for the environment, and that they lead to depression.

Don't forget the mercury... won't someone think of the egrets?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The mercury, conspiracy and worse for the environment? How could forget those?

I'm getting old. BAH!!

Louis

There's *always* a conspiracy, and if they THEY claim otherwise, it's a cover-up. If you claim otherwise, you're either a naive dupe or in THEIR pockets. No evidence for a conspiracy only shows how deep-reaching THEIR influence is. And if the conspiracy theory only works if governments and scientists all over the world are together in it, that only means that you should buy 10 000 light bulbs, a diesel generator, a plywood shack somewhere in the woods, and a gun if you live in the US (I actually read that in a comment...) or that you should buy 10 000 light bulbs, leave all your lights on at all times (that'll show Them!)*, and get really angry in the pub, if you live in Germany. In the UK, you'll probably become Lord Monckton.

* I read that one, too.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

However, your point is interesting. It seems you are suggesting that the ID argument is:

“known non-design alternatives for life are wrong therefore life was designed”

I think this is a good summary of the ID argument but do you really support it? I have spent hours hearing from people on the ID side protesting that this is not the case. They claim there is positive evidence for design as well as evidence against “Darwinism”.

This lovely, fresh-faced smiling young miss (I gather she was precisely 18 at the time of this picture)

Of course it is not his fault:

Quote

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Thus, we are being lured into a world of graphical, aural and verbal stimulation, designed to pull us into an addiction to not only watching but participating in anything-goes action, and to eventually join the fun by (a) taking and posting public pictures of your "equipment" or adventures, or even (b) advertising in pop-ups on the same sites.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

DeNews quotes Mark Steyn getting all nostalgic about the movie Apollo 13. She tries to smear current thinking in cosmology by linking it to the fiction of the upcoming Apollo 18.

Quote

Now, some fear NASA will end up in tune with crackpot cosmologies. You know, “We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in” because he is The Smartest Man in the WorldTM, and these days genius beats exploration as a source of knowledge.

Obviously, it's much better to rely on a book filled with stories of talking snakes or sticks that turn into snakes or voices speaking out of burning bushes or the parting of seas or people turned into pillars of salt for just looking the wrong way. Let's keep things real here, people.

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

Also make sure you spell "Toyota" correctly and I don't suggest "whitehouse.com"

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Also make sure you spell "Toyota" correctly and I don't suggest "whitehouse.com"

Whitehouse.com is down now, but Wiki says this: "In 2004 Dan Parisi decided to sell the domain, mainly because of his son who would be in kindergarten the next year. At this point he was making US$1 million annually from the site alone."

Who was it who said, "I'm not in politics for my health?"

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

In “Genetics Paper Retracted: Due to statistical errors, a Science paper claiming that mutation is responsible for genetic variation is retracted” (The Scientist September 2, 2011), Jessica P. Johnson reports,

Quote

A May 2010 Science paper showing that the most genetically fit cow-pea weevils have fewer deleterious genetic mutations in their genomes than their less fit counterparts was retracted yesterday (September 1) by the authors because of flaws in their statistical analysis.

Quote

The results apparently supported the hypothesis that individuals with the fewest bad mutations will produce the most fit offspring.

Quote

The revised data analysis, which shows little effect on fitness due to mutation, suggests that some other mechanism may instead be responsible for maintaining genetic variation in weevil populations.

Wonder what?

Must have been the designer at work.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

BTW, it is good to know that due to their moral superiority decent behaviour like retracting errornous papers is so common among ID scientists.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

They might want to check into what’s happening to students too. They should see Expelled as well.

Today’s universities are a living antithesis of everything North American nations were founded for.

Ah, yes. There was that notorious case of the professor at some Southern Baptist seminary who wrote something that was felt to be at odds with orthodox opinion at the institution. He was invited to 'clarify' his position or look for another job.

Rabbi pleads with Darwinian atheists: Turn back from legal pedophilia. But they can’t.

1. DeNews sees no difference between journalism and propaganda and thereby ignores the commandment against bearing false witness.

2. Various celebrity clergy are quick to smear atheism for implying amorality and hence permitting pedophilia. They ignore the evidence that religious belief does not provide an insurmountable barrier to pedophilia which brings to mind a saying about glass houses and stone-throwing.

3. Even worse is that, while the Lord took care to prohibit things like taking His name in vain, making graven images or coveting the neighbor's ox, He apparently overlooked the small matter of abusing children - or maybe He didn't consider it such a big deal.

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

Also make sure you spell "Toyota" correctly and I don't suggest "whitehouse.com"

Serious question: what misspelling of Toyota should I be using in my "research"?

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

To me, Gordo is more like another Leroy.

LEEEEEEEEEROOOYYYYYYY JENKINS!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

To me, Gordo is more like another Leroy.

LEEEEEEEEEROOOYYYYYYY JENKINS!

All WoW and no play makes Jack a dull boy...All WoW and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Well, sure. I don't know how many times I've tried to Google "Basic Astrophysics" and ended up at "Back Door Babes". Happens all the time. Even when my "safe search" filter is on, right Gorgo?

Happens to me too when I search "back door babe", that was that adorable moment in the movie Babe, when Babe the piglet tries to get into the farmer's house through the backdoor.

I don't regret the searches, though. It seems Gordo* has something against sex. How surprising...

*I am really reluctant about that nick. For me Gordo has always been Leroy Gordon Cooper, a hero of mine, even if he went crazy pants in his later years.

Also make sure you spell "Toyota" correctly and I don't suggest "whitehouse.com"

Serious question: what misspelling of Toyota should I be using in my "research"?

I was wondering about that too. I'm not sure I want to know the answer, but I will confess to being curious.

And let's not forget: " I once took a class to learn how to run LS-DYNA, a simulator engine developed by some other really smart folks. Now I are a both an engineer and a scientist!".

Shows how little you need to know to be a simulator jock:

1) take a guess, based on what has worked previously.2) run the sim, 3) tweak a parameter or two,4) re-run the sim.5) continue trial and error until it works.

Hmm, where have I seen this mindless procedure work before?

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Hmm... Joe seems to still think that our 'debate' was about evolution. Him and medplex are upset because I never did define evolution.

Of course, I stated that I agreed with all of Joe's definitions of evolution EXCEPT the strawman one that is the only one he actually argues against. When called on that definition and asked to find a single reference that used it, he ran away.

Is it any surprise that what we used to call lumpen proletariat elements would soak in the atmosphere of amorality and resort to nihilistic, opportunistic looting; without being able to quote Nietzsche. Why should they, it was all written into their school books and the teacher’s scripts for classes, it was trumpeted all over TV, it was in the papers and it was on the net.

Er, right-o. Nailed that on the head.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

3. Even worse is that, while the Lord took care to prohibit things like taking His name in vain, making graven images or coveting the neighbor's ox, He apparently overlooked the small matter of abusing children - or maybe He didn't consider it such a big deal.

Not at all - Jesus specifically commanded "Suffer the little children", and the Vatican is merely trying its utmost to ensure that they do. (/snark)

Just started watching a documentary called Mystical Brain. In the first few minutes it quotes O'Leary's Spatula Brain coauthor Mario Beauregard:

Quote

We lived in the country. I had lots of time to think. Already when I was young, I had an inner certainty that the essence of human beings, the soul if you will, was a phenomenon linked to the brain, but was not the brain. One could not be reduced to the other. As a child, I thought, "When I grow up, I'll become a scientist, and I'll demonstrate that."

It's a nice summary of the ID attitude toward science: "I already know the Truth. I can't be wrong. Science's job is to confirm what I know, and by God, I'll twist and mangle it until it does."

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

I would never suggest that. Although you do seem to have a bad case of Altoholism. Which server are you on? Do you raid? What spec is your druid?*

Louis

*Not that I know about these things. Never played the game in my life. Honest.

Druid is a Boomchicken because I'm too chickenshit to try healing, although I AM dual specced for it.

I play on the US Bloodhoof server, as does Deadman. Both Alliance. I don't get to raid any more because of this absolute shit satellite ISP I have here in the sticks of Washington State. 650 latency is a GOOD day for me. Normally it's 800-2k so the lag is too much for even random instances, much less raiding. I used to OWN Icecrown Citadel, back before I moved. Waaaah!

I'll tell you our toons' names if you care to look us up. Deadman raids pretty regularly and is a bit of a gear whore, even if he denies it. He's even a Defender of A Shattered World, the bastard! :angry:

--------------I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

You may find this version fraught with insights, with answers to yet unanswered questions and with directions for thought, study and work IF, if like the boy in The Emperor's New Clothes, you call what you see; if you regard the in-cell contents a life-bearing micro-space-ship at a homeostatic state.

Groan.... Talus you won't do that again, or I'll have to put my foot down. You're just tap-dancing around the issue.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

At age 90 as of 2011, my father is one of the few living scientists who developed the atomic bomb during WWII. He named me after the great physical chemist Gilbert Newton Lewis, under whom my dad earned his Ph.D. in his early 20s while working on the Manhattan Project.

When I was a child in the 1950s rumors spread that the communist Chinese were developing an atomic bomb. I asked my dad, “Why don’t we just keep it a secret from them?” My dad replied, and I’ll never forget it, “Gilbert, the secret is in nature, and it’s there to be found by anyone who looks hard enough.”

Of course, my dad was talking about the nature of the nucleus of the atom, physical chemistry, and the potential for a sustained nuclear chain reaction.

I would like to offer the following observation, inspired by my father’s comment: Design is to be found in nature, by anyone who looks hard enough.

The irony is that figuring out nuclear fission requires quite a bit of searching for “secrets,” while design in nature is there to be found with almost no searching at all. Design screams from every corner of creation. Not finding design in nature is what takes a lot of effort.

Poor Frill's head is going to explode if he tiptoes any closer to the inevitable question. Dissonance much, Gil?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

I don't know why, but the lack of self-awareness over there still stupefies me. DeNews:

Quote

In fairness, Matzke doesn’t really know much about carnivorous plants, whereas Loennig is clearly an expert.

Matzke has a tendency to rely on pseudo-experts, which can play him false.

His best bet right now, to event he score, would be to bring in a real expert on his side.

Her stupidity is truly awe-inspiring.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

I don't know why, but the lack of self-awareness over there still stupefies me. DeNews:

Quote

In fairness, Matzke doesn’t really know much about carnivorous plants, whereas Loennig is clearly an expert.

Matzke has a tendency to rely on pseudo-experts, which can play him false.

His best bet right now, to event he score, would be to bring in a real expert on his side.

Her stupidity is truly awe-inspiring.

Ah, Lönnig again. As usual he cites Behe and other creationists in his article "Carnivorous Plants" that somehow made it into Nature's Encyclopaedia of Life Sciences. Interestingly, he cites Robert Nachtwey's "Der Irrweg des Darwinismus" published 1959. According to a review it contained already everything that Intelligent Design claims today and those arguments were outdated back then:

Quote

We could dispose of this book and itssubject-the misdirection of Darwinism-in a few sentences. On the basis of itsintrinsic merit it rates only a little space.But the very fact that such a work couldbe published a century after Darwin'sThe Origin of Species is interesting initself and, to anyone concerned with theresistance that scientific knowledge oftenencounters, this fact is important enoughto merit some study.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

If you are referring to the God of the Bible, then He owes us nothing other than punishment for our crimes against Him. If this makes no sense to you, then you plainly fail to understand simple Biblical theology.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Didn’t know one of the writers here comes from such a achieving family in the great stories of the use of physics. Too bad its killing people but in reality the atomic bombs had to be used to save people from being killed other ways. The good guys too.Its cool to have creationism(s) these days with rightfully confident people.

Will Gildo tell Robert that his father is an atheist not dismissing evolution theory?BTW: Since when is ID creationism?Or do I miss irony and Mr. Byers pisses off Gildo?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Well I learned something today. For as long as I can remember I had been pronouncing Gil with a soft G but now I discover it's short for Gilbert.

Gilbert Dodgen.

Someone really ought to tell him the Universe is taking the piss out of him. The only other Gil I am aware of is Gil Gerard (Buck Rogers). And so without further excuse here's a picture of the lovely Wilma Deering.

The universe implodes as DeNudes opines on IQ, snatching an illustration from the Wikipedia article on IQ, uncredited.

That article also states:

"The American Psychological Association's report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%."

And

"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for. While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations."

And

"The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes."

There are many caveats; academic performance, job performance and income are all complexly and multiply determined. IQ has a relationship with each of them, stronger in some instances than in others.

From this DeNudes concludes:

Quote

within a normal range - there is no systematic relationship between IQ and achievement.

*Facepalm*

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

The universe implodes as DeNudes opines on IQ, snatching an illustration from the Wikipedia article on IQ, uncredited.

That article also states:

"The American Psychological Association's report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%."

And

"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for. While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations."

And

"The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes."

There are many caveats; academic performance, job performance and income are all complexly and multiply determined. IQ has a relationship with each of them, stronger in some instances than in others.

From this DeNudes concludes:

Quote

within a normal range - there is no systematic relationship between IQ and achievement.

*Facepalm*

Isn't the data skewed because a lot of the high IQ people were not interested in "achieving". I've met a lot of very smart people who were contented with a job that gave them enough resources to follow their own passions.

The universe implodes as DeNudes opines on IQ, snatching an illustration from the Wikipedia article on IQ, uncredited.

That article also states:

"The American Psychological Association's report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%."

And

"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for. While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations."

And

"The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes."

There are many caveats; academic performance, job performance and income are all complexly and multiply determined. IQ has a relationship with each of them, stronger in some instances than in others.

From this DeNudes concludes:

Quote

within a normal range - there is no systematic relationship between IQ and achievement.

*Facepalm*

Isn't the data skewed because a lot of the high IQ people were not interested in "achieving". I've met a lot of very smart people who were contented with a job that gave them enough resources to follow their own passions.

Isn't a job that gives

Quote

them enough resources to follow their own passions

already quite some achievement?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

Isn't the data skewed because a lot of the high IQ people were not interested in "achieving". I've met a lot of very smart people who were contented with a job that gave them enough resources to follow their own passions.

Isn't a job that gives

Quote

them enough resources to follow their own passions

already quite some achievement?

I recall vaguely a "zen*" story about a student asking a teacher about what a "miracle" was, the reply;

Sleep when you are tired, eat when you are hungry.

*I doubt it is associated with any actual Zen Buddhist teaching. More likely Nichiren Buddhism, since they are not (as) opposed to gratifying physical desires like fatigue and hunger rationalized under the teaching of "Expedient Means."

Edited by Dr.GH on Sep. 07 2011,01:25

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Cannuckian Yankee 4.1 Incidentally, News, I’m now on the 2nd Chapter and it appears that it’s not exactly a “Darwin-free book.” Koonin appears to have more of a problem with the “Hardness” and dogmatism of the modern synthesis; thus the Preface: “Toward a Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology.” He praises Darwin and those who further praise Darwin; even mentioning Dobzhansky’s famous “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” not once, but twice for emphasis.

One thing I can tell you about the book – it’s very well written and easy to follow. He’s not so much interested in the fine details as he is in the “big picture.” He states at the beginning that he first intended it to be a popular Tome like that of Hawking, but later revised it to be a bit more “scientific” but not technical.

They do get a little encouragement. Koonin apparently thinks that abiogenesis is a 1 in 10^thousand or so event.

Thanks for the publicity, Denyse!

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

One thing I can tell you about the book – it’s very well written and easy to follow. He’s not so much interested in the fine details as he is in the “big picture.” He states at the beginning that he first intended it to be a popular Tome like that of Hawking, but later revised it to be a bit more “scientific” but not technical.

This seems right to me. It's extremely well written, and unless there are boneheaded errors, it's going to be a classic on the order of The Selfish Gene.

It seems to hit every point that ever comes up in evolution debates, and except for OOL, it nails them down tight.

There's a -- perhaps unnecessary -- section on postmodernism, which quietly takes it down. Concluding that most big subjects in science, including physics, are incomplete and provisional, with overlapping "narratives," each of which reliably describes some phenomena, but which fail to be the grand unifying theory. There's an implied "so what."

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Did de News really just get excited over a new book on evolution because it knocks over her cartoon understanding of "Darwinism"?

Too bad she doesn't read beyond the cover slips. It seems most of her anti-Darwin rage was based on her understanding of the Selfish Gene book cover. (according to her, that's the gene that makes us act selfishly and therefore evolve)

I was just thinking ID is like that scene in Sleeper where Allen and Keaton are asked to check the cell structure of the clone. Hilarity (or at least a mild chuckle) ensues.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Dennis Venema, the “heavy hitter” of Biologos when it comes to evolutionary theory — hands up, professors of evolutionary biology at Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., if you have heard of Dennis Venema — has recently issued some remarks about ID in an interview. [a lot of whining]The moneybags who fund Biologos would be wiser to start a whole new theology/science project, one run by people who are much more cognizant of the very latest developments in biological science and the very latest developments in post-graduate-level theology. And, above all, one run by people who honor the basic academic principle that one should make sure one understands a theoretical position before one criticizes it.

Requirement to criticise ID: Being a professor of evolutionary biology at a top notch university who understands the "theoretical position" of ID, i.e. pretends that there is one.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

I attended a Christian College (now University) that had a tendency to seek out professors who had some secular academic credentials. They ended up in one instance courting Tony Campolo in Sociology from the UofP. No friend of Darwin, though. So there is a way. Of course, I don’t really know if there aren’t any open Darwinists there, but perhaps some secret Darwinists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if practically every Christian college has it’s secret Darwinist, just as practically every secular college has it’s open Christian.

What’s really alarming though is the open Darwinist in a decidedly Evangelical college. This is the sort of practice that eventually causes a college to abandon it’s Christian roots. Then the foundation is lost and it becomes another secular college like all the others that have gone before: Princeton (Presbyterian), Yale (Congregationalist), Dartmouth (Puritan), to name a few. Well funded colleges to be sure, but not exactly Christian anymore. Some discernment is in order.

You can't make stuff like that up.

"Secular academic credentials" in a prof, outrageous!

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Is musical ability heritable? I’ve read that it does tend to run in families.

The mixing and matching of existing genetic information (which obviously occurs) is not what Darwinism attempts to explain. It attempts to explain the origin of completely novel, never-before-seen information.

As far as musical ability is concerned, I believe I got some of that, but it definitely doesn’t run in the family. It appears to have appeared out of nowhere in my family lineage.

The obvious question Gildo doesn't dare to ask? Why did he obviously not inherrit the intellectual capacity that run in the family? It appears to have vanished into nowhere.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Even under an ID hypothesis, plant carnivory ought to have some function, right? It’s not exactly revolutionary to suggest that the function of *carnivory*, i.e. *eating things*, is probably to *get nutrients*. Gimme a freakin’ break here!

The only reason you guys are objecting to these basic points is that you just hate Darwin and somehow have got it in your head that the association between carnivorous plants and low-nutrient situations is some kind of evolutionary/Darwinist conspiracy. But that just ain’t so.

If you follow the discussion, that's exactly what's going on. In essence, they're arguing that there's no benefit for the plant in being carnivorous. But no one asks why, if that were true, a supposedly intelligent designer would've made them carnivorous. Probably because god the designer works in mysterious ways.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

If he weren't so sanctimonious, condescending, and willfully ignorant, one could almost feel some sympathy for kairosfocus. He's so blinded by Leweontin's statement that "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." that he is actually incapable of understanding that the following sentences explain exactly why this is the case: "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

When you understand the scientific method, kairosfocus, you will be able to understand Lewontin.

Even under an ID hypothesis, plant carnivory ought to have some function, right? It’s not exactly revolutionary to suggest that the function of *carnivory*, i.e. *eating things*, is probably to *get nutrients*. Gimme a freakin’ break here!

The only reason you guys are objecting to these basic points is that you just hate Darwin and somehow have got it in your head that the association between carnivorous plants and low-nutrient situations is some kind of evolutionary/Darwinist conspiracy. But that just ain’t so.

If you follow the discussion, that's exactly what's going on. In essence, they're arguing that there's no benefit for the plant in being carnivorous. But no one asks why, if that were true, a supposedly intelligent designer would've made them carnivorous. Probably because god the designer works in mysterious ways.

If The Fall could make those nice plant-eating T-rexes turn into carnivorous beasts, then surely the plants had to join them.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The five-fingered limb is much easier to subtract from than add to. That’s the fundamental problem with Darwinian evolution. There is an original law, probably based on design.

Or maybe there's common descent.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

ID proponents SHOULD be “truthers”, because both have come to their conclusions from following the evidence, not popular, or an expert’s, opinion.

Please stop the perforative use of the term “conspiracy theorist”. Every Law Enforcement Officer is a conspiracy theorist, and they arrest people for conspiracy often.

Some truthers might be a bit insane, but the one’s leading the movement are mostly scientists. www.ae911truth.org

Come on, UD, only one truther? There must be more!

BTW, isn't it great that he tries to make the truthers seem reasonable by claiming that they're all scientists? Paragwinn:

Quote

Actually, ae911truth.org is led by architects and engineers, not scientists.

I LOL'ed.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

According to the current theory of evolution ALL genetic changes are accidents/ mistakes/ errors.

I’m not aware of anything in evolutionary theory that says that the goal of reproduction is an exact copy. What is required for evolution to happen is actually reproduction with variance, so genetic changes serve a purpose – i.e. they are not accidents, mistakes or errors in the sense that they are unintended – but they are all random with respect to fitness.

There is an important difference between randomly generated, but necessary, variety and just unwanted errors.

Evolution depends on variety so by definition variety in its self is not an error, or to put it another way – you don’t understand evolutionary theory.

Perhaps Joe can point to a specific example of a genomic change that was not the result of a stochastic process.

He already did.

On his blog.

You are just too stupid to understand.

Assface.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

bornagain77 has identified a tool in the Darwinist Conspiracy To Supress Evidence Regarding The Cambrian Explosion: Fossil Collectors!ba77

Quote

David, perhaps it was a case of ‘cognitive dissonance’ on [Charles Doolittle] Walcott’s part, but none-the-less, despite the level to which Walcott suppressed that which was so surprising to him that it caused him to collect 60,000 specimens, it is certainly a clear example of a inherent materialistic bias for which we have all paid a severe price in the setting back science for several decades

David W. Gibson

Quote

Not at all. Walcott was a collector. He squirreled away FAR more specimens than that; he collected fossils of any and all kinds from everywhere he went. He was not ‘cognitively dissonent’, any more than any other collector. He did not “suppress” anything, he simply collected it. Collectors do that.

Evidently, museum drawers are the Vanishing Cabinets of Conspiratorial Magic.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Over at UD there's a $1000 prize (judges not named) for "anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act."

No prize is being offered for anyone who can calculate the CSI of any living organism.

No prize is being offered for anyone who can cite an instance of design being implemented, other than by humans. No prize for what. No prize for when, No prize for how.

No prize is being offered for explaining where or how a finite (non-supernatural) designer stores the 10^500 bits of information regarding fitness landscapes and coding sequences that would be required to design without using some form of GA. (Assuming, of course, that fitness landscapes really are as rugged as claimed by ID advocates.)

Over at UD there's a $1000 prize (judges not named) for "anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act."

No prize is being offered for anyone who can calculate the CSI of any living organism.

No prize is being offered for anyone who can cite an instance of design being implemented, other than by humans. No prize for what. No prize for when, No prize for how.

No prize is being offered for explaining where or how a finite (non-supernatural) designer stores the 10^500 bits of information regarding fitness landscapes and coding sequences that would be required to design without using some form of GA. (Assuming, of course, that fitness landscapes really are as rugged as claimed by ID advocates.)

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I'm interested in how gil and ba77 will approach this, since they assume the designer is god. They obviously have no problem with infinite resources..

I'd be more interested in StephenB's attempt. Isn't the main part of his schtick that methodological naturalism, by limiting itself to natural explanations, is attempting to discriminate against ID? By his reasoning, supernatural causation is *REQUIRED* in design theory.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I'm interested in how gil and ba77 will approach this, since they assume the designer is god. They obviously have no problem with infinite resources..

I'd be more interested in StephenB's attempt. Isn't the main part of his schtick that methodological naturalism, by limiting itself to natural explanations, is attempting to discriminate against ID? By his reasoning, supernatural causation is *REQUIRED* in design theory.

The big tent does not cover any foolishly consistent hobgoblins.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

As a general comment though, this looks like a challenge to ID more than it is to evolutionary scientists. I doubt any evo biologists would have an issue with the idea of an intelligent agent being able to design a living thing. Perhaps a more pertinent and direct challenge would be to show that supernatural intervention is not required to create life – when no material intelligent agent already exists – otherwise it is just inviting infinite regress (is a supernatural event required to produce the non supernatural intelligence that designed the life or do we invoke another material designer as the designer of the designer)

This requires a bit of head spinning. What kind of non-supernatural entity designs the first life?

If none is required, how is this different from naturalism? If it is required, the contest is won.

ETA:

The loudspeaker in the ceiling just deleted most of DrBot's post, specifically the part I quoted above.

Barry, thanks for the reply, I think some things still need clarification. For a start, I asked about non material minds and in reply you said:

Quote

Therefore, I am going to make a bold assumption for the sake of argument. Let us assume for the sake of argument that intelligent agents do NOT have free will, i.e., that the tertium quid does not exist. Let us assume instead, for the sake of argument, that the cause of all activity of all intelligent agents can be reduced to physical causes.

You responded with a statement about free will where you assume that it cannot exist in systems which operate according to the laws of physics. I don't have a problem with the idea that a material mind has free will, or conversely I can see that a non-material mind could equally lack free will. Free will in this context is not related to the issue of how 'mind' is defined.

Would the simplest thing be to state, as a premise for the competition, that a mind, intentionality and consciousness can all be produced by matter?

As a general comment though, this looks like a challenge to ID more than it is to evolutionary scientists. I doubt any evo biologists would have an issue with the idea of an intelligent agent being able to design a living thing. Perhaps a more pertinent and direct challenge would be to show that supernatural intervention is not required to create life - when no material intelligent agent already exists - otherwise it is just inviting infinite regress (is a supernatural event required to produce the non supernatural intelligence that designed the life or do we invoke another material designer as the designer of the designer)

This is the root question isn't it - how was life created, not how or in what way does it evolve once it exists.

I won't take up the challenge because I don't think that a supernatural act is required to produce life, most scientists I know would probably agree, but I look forward to seeing some of the ID supporters taking it up, and thanks for issuing the challenge (I mean that sincerely)

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

As a general comment though, this looks like a challenge to ID more than it is to evolutionary scientists. I doubt any evo biologists would have an issue with the idea of an intelligent agent being able to design a living thing. Perhaps a more pertinent and direct challenge would be to show that supernatural intervention is not required to create life – when no material intelligent agent already exists – otherwise it is just inviting infinite regress (is a supernatural event required to produce the non supernatural intelligence that designed the life or do we invoke another material designer as the designer of the designer)

This requires a bit of head spinning. What kind of non-supernatural entity designs the first life?

If none is required, how is this different from naturalism? If it is required, the contest is won.

ETA:

The loudspeaker in the ceiling just deleted most of DrBot's post, specifically the part I quoted above.

Hardly surprising. Barry seems to construct elaborate rhetorical traps in his mind and can't seem to handle it when his presumed opponent deviates from the script Barry so helpfully wrote for him/her.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Over at UD there's a $1000 prize (judges not named) for "anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act."

No prize is being offered for anyone who can calculate the CSI of any living organism.

No prize is being offered for anyone who can cite an instance of design being implemented, other than by humans. No prize for what. No prize for when, No prize for how.

No prize is being offered for explaining where or how a finite (non-supernatural) designer stores the 10^500 bits of information regarding fitness landscapes and coding sequences that would be required to design without using some form of GA. (Assuming, of course, that fitness landscapes really are as rugged as claimed by ID advocates.)

Good post. I like the comments “to have written 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being shameful” and “with far fewer papers being published, reviewers, grant committees and promotion committees might be able to read the papers, not just count them.”

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Good post. I like the comments “to have written 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being shameful” and “with far fewer papers being published, reviewers, grant committees and promotion committees might be able to read the papers, not just count them.”

Quote

led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

He is referring to bio-complexity, isn't he?

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Memo to CNN: After the Ardi and Ida pfffft’s, what religion do we join, so we can not believe in your latest babe, Sediba?

Nothing wrong with Ardi as a fossil, only certain IDiots who don't realize how many design events are required for homonins - they just engage in denial. Ida is an example of a sparse record, of course there is going to be different ideas on where it is in the tree of life.

What you should do is get your science news from journal articles. Of course if you tried...

Quote

Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Remember Densy's blunder in saying that a circular phylogenetic tree diagram was not a tree?

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

He has some rather strong associations in the conspiracy world with people who blame Israel for 9/11.

Just looking briefly at the truther sewer, he might have disassociated himself from that. Or not. It's difficult to tell who's in and who's out. What a mess.

I have a personal reason for thinking the Trade Center theorists are full of shit. They talk about the fire not being hot enough.

I live a few blocks from a church that burned a few years ago. It had a frame made of steel I-beams which bent like cooked spaghetti in the fire. There was no additional fuel. It was just a routine fire.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

He has some rather strong associations in the conspiracy world with people who blame Israel for 9/11.

Just looking briefly at the truther sewer, he might have disassociated himself from that. Or not. It's difficult to tell who's in and who's out. What a mess.

I have a personal reason for thinking the Trade Center theorists are full of shit. They talk about the fire not being hot enough.

I live a few blocks from a church that burned a few years ago. It had a frame made of steel I-beams which bent like cooked spaghetti in the fire. There was no additional fuel. It was just a routine fire.

Well, obviously the CIA/Illuminati/Elders of Zion/Manchester United FC planted incendiary explosives around the beams when the place was built, so they could burn it down years later to discredit the conspiracy theories they knew would arise after they burned down the WTC.

It's the only logical explanation.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

He has some rather strong associations in the conspiracy world with people who blame Israel for 9/11.

Just looking briefly at the truther sewer, he might have disassociated himself from that. Or not. It's difficult to tell who's in and who's out. What a mess.

I have a personal reason for thinking the Trade Center theorists are full of shit. They talk about the fire not being hot enough.

I live a few blocks from a church that burned a few years ago. It had a frame made of steel I-beams which bent like cooked spaghetti in the fire. There was no additional fuel. It was just a routine fire.

Oh, please don't tell me that anyone besides Rosie O'Donnell is repeating that crap! And geez, doesn't Denyse know that skeptic/atheist/"Darwinist" Michael Shermer has been one of the most outspoken voices against 9-11 conspiracies? (Of course not.)

This stuff depresses me as much as creationism does. Oh, speaking of which do you know that the Great Depression was planned? (From a local cable access show in the 1990s. Blarg! )

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Lifton seems to be upset that I have endorsed a book, STRANGER THAN FICTION, which traces the history of Zionism from the late 1800s to the present day and advances evidence, not only of the history of terrorism practiced by those who wanted to create the State of Israel, but of Israeli involvement in the events of 9/11. I had independently concluded Israel was involved in 9/11 before I discovered this book. I must admit that I had no clear concept of Zionism until relatively recently, when I began inviting experts on the subject onto my radio program, "The Real Deal", including Stephen Lendman (13 March 2010), Barry Chamish (30 March 2010), and Elias Davidsson (10 July 2010).

Good post. I like the comments “to have written 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being shameful” and “with far fewer papers being published, reviewers, grant committees and promotion committees might be able to read the papers, not just count them.”

Quote

led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

He is referring to bio-complexity, isn't he?

Yep objectivism bolted to a post modernist fact free truthiness.

Or if you like thruth free factlessness.

Where no test that survives the scientific principle survives creationist/ID mendaciousness.

Lifton seems to be upset that I have endorsed a book, STRANGER THAN FICTION, which traces the history of Zionism from the late 1800s to the present day and advances evidence, not only of the history of terrorism practiced by those who wanted to create the State of Israel, but of Israeli involvement in the events of 9/11. I had independently concluded Israel was involved in 9/11 before I discovered this book. I must admit that I had no clear concept of Zionism until relatively recently, when I began inviting experts on the subject onto my radio program, "The Real Deal", including Stephen Lendman (13 March 2010), Barry Chamish (30 March 2010), and Elias Davidsson (10 July 2010).

He has some rather strong associations in the conspiracy world with people who blame Israel for 9/11.

Just looking briefly at the truther sewer, he might have disassociated himself from that. Or not. It's difficult to tell who's in and who's out. What a mess.

I have a personal reason for thinking the Trade Center theorists are full of shit. They talk about the fire not being hot enough.

I live a few blocks from a church that burned a few years ago. It had a frame made of steel I-beams which bent like cooked spaghetti in the fire. There was no additional fuel. It was just a routine fire.

Except for the obvious fact that our support for Israel pisses off the Arabs.

I would call wrong on that one. Israel support doesn't piss off Arabs. It pisses off Muslims. There is quite a few Arabs that happen to be Jews as well.

Interesting. I stand corrected.

Would many Jewish Arabs be living in the countries that seem to be supporting militant Muslims? Could you speculate on the percentage or the raw numbers?

Actually, there are many Arabic Christians in the region.

Which, in the end, would come down to the governments being pissed off, not the ethnicity as a whole. There are also arab atheists (not very outspoken, though, because of the "apostasy punishable by death" thing and all).

Now, we could also argue that all of them are semitic, so basically it's just another of those religious wars we've heard about before...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Well, when you are forbiden to take part in a shitload of business ventures, you get very good at mastering what you are allowed to do. That's what they did in Europe, and now continue to do. Can't blame them. The reasons they were forbiden? They killed Jebus! (I am not familiar with other reasons why).

As for Semitic, it's all related to language, culture and ethnicity. Basically, all the people originated around the Jordanian/Israely/Arab Peninsula are semitic.